TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (8) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner were that while functioning as a clerk in the D.T.O. Cuttack on 12-4-1969 he was found to be in possession of assets to the tune of Rs. 48,058.78 paise which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and he could not render any satisfactory explanation for the same and thereby he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 3 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964, secondly during the period between 8-7-1958 and 8-4-1969 he committed grave mis-conduct inasmuch as he acquired landed property in his own name and in the name of his wife without obtaining the previous sanction of the competent authority as required under Rule 18(2) of the said Rules and thirdly on 6-10-1969 he submitted to his authorities an incorrect statement In respect of his assets and liabilities inasmuch as he omitted to mention the lands measuring O. 66 acre purchased by his wife under sale deed Nos. 2091 of 1961,2799 of 1967 and 2631 of 1969 and thereby violated Rule 18(1) of the said Rules. 4. The Petitioner submitted his by to the charges on 16.2.1971. The enquiry was taken up on 13-7-1971 and completed on 24.1.1976 During the enquiry, the Depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and capricious that no reasonable persons can ever arrive at that conclusion. 9. As regards the first charge, the Enquiring Officer found that the Petitioner's total income during the relevant period was Rs. 64,806.92 paise and his total expenditure was Rs. 53,894.23 paise, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 11,212.69 paise, but on 12-4-1969 the Petitioner was found to be in possession of assets worth Rs. 60,769.23 P. Accordingly the Enquiring Officer held that the excess assets worth Rs. 49,566.64 paise was disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Disciplinary Authority simply agreed with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and did not refer to the evidence on record. The appellate authority without discussing the evidence on record came to hold that the Petitioner's wife did not have any independent source of income and that her father also did not have sound financial position so as to pass on the assets to his daughter. 10. According to the opposite parties, the Petitioner's income from land during the relevant period was Rs. 3,624.41 paise whereas according to the Petitioner it was Rs. 28,800/-. The Petitioner relied on a certificate dated 9-2-1968 gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing the income of the Petitioner during the relevant period. 11. The lands in the name of the Petitioner's wife valued at Rs. 9,162/- have been treated as the assets of the Petitioner. The Enquiring Officer has not recorded any finding that the sale deeds stood ostensibly in the name of the wife and it was the Petitioner in whom the title vested and it was he who was the real beneficiary. The Enquiring Officer did not at all apply his mind to the question whether it was the Petitioner who had acquired the properties in the name of his wife P.W. 17 Sridhar Behera who is the scribe of the sale deeds gave evidence that Bina Mallick, the father-in-law of the Petitioner paid the consideration money under those sale deeds. He also stated that neither the Petitioner nor his wife was present at the time of the transaction under those sale deeds. His evidence shows that Bina Mallick had told him that out of his three daughters he liked the Petitioner's wife very much and wanted to acquire some lands in her name. Bina Mallick who was examined as D.W. 6 gave evidence that at the time of marriage of the Petitioner he had promised to give one acre of land and accordingly he acquired ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eight acres of land which are well irrigated and fertile. The evidence of the above witnesses not at all been considered by the Enquiring Officer. He has relied mainly on the evidence of P.Ws. 18 and 21 in arriving at the finding that the building was constructed by the petitioner. In his examination-in-chief P.W. 18 stated: I cannot say from which source Bina Mallick got the huge amount to construct the building. He might have some hidden treasure. But there is a gossip in the village that Bina Mllick's son-in-law Shri K.C. Mallick is a big official at Cuttack and he might be contributing money for the building.' His evidence being based on village gossip was inadmissible in evidence. P.W. 21 Braja Kishare Swain appears to be on inimical terms with Bina Mallick. He admitted that he had filed a criminal case against Bina Mallick which ended in acquittal. He also admitted that Bina Mallick had obtained a decree against him and that an appeal filed by him was dismissed in this state of evidence, no reasonable man can rely upon the evidence of P.Ws. 18 and 21 for coming to a conclusion that the building was constructed by the Petitioner out of his own funds. The evidence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id by him on 13-7-1971 as per the receipt Ext. D-4. The Enquiring Officer took the view that D.W. 1 Basant Kumar Mahapatra bad no financial status to purchase and manage a rice habere. It appears, however, from the evidence of D.W. 1 that he owns five acres of land, works as a teacher and runs a grocery shop. All these facts and circumstances have been totally ignored by the Enquiring Officer. 14. An amount of Rs. 2419.03 paise in the Saving Bank Account of the Petitioner's wife has been treated to be the assets of the Petitioner. Petitioner examined D.W. 4 to show that the money belongs to his wife. As indicated earlier, there are landed properties standing in the name of the Petitioner's wife. She might have deposited the income from the lands on the Savings Bank Account. There is absolutely no evidence on the side of the Department to show that the Petitioner had ever carried on any transaction in respect of the Savings Bank Account. 15. The gold and silver ornaments found in the house were valued at Rs. 4254/- and included in the assets of the Petitioner. The Petitioner's case was that the ornaments were brought by his wife and daughter-in-law as dowry. There is n....